MYSTEEIOUS FORGOTTEN HACES 255
numerous examples have been cited of alleged Chin-
ese and Japanese characters and Inscriptions upon
pre-lncan pottery, sculptures and metal work.
At first glance the proof appears to be conclusive.
But a close study of the arguments and alleged
proofs rather shatters one's faith in the theory.
There are many times more words in the Quichua
and Aimara dialects which bear not the slightest simi-
larity to the Chinese and Japanese than the similar
words compiled so carefully. Moreover, there are as
many or even more that closely resemble—in fact are
often identical with—words of the same meaning in
the Oceanian dialects. And the superficial similarity
of a few words among thousands is far from conclu-
sive evidence of racial relationship. The various in-
scriptions and characters which are claimed to be
Chinese or Japanese are most questionable. Some of
these are obviously purely decorative motifs, and be-
ing composed of lines and dots, bear a superficial re-
semblance to Chinese characters. Others are
apparently pictographs, and it is only natural that
crudely and greatly conventionalized symbols for cer-
tain objects as used by one race should more or less
resemble the symbols used as characters in writing by
another race, even though there is no connection be-
tween them. In many cases, also, the sponsors of this
theory have used vivid imaginations and have "re-
stored" the so-called inscriptions to fulfil their own
ideas as to what they should be. Finally, the origi-
nators of this theory admit that no two authorities
agree as to the interpretation of the alleged Oriental
characters, and not one of the translations offered has
any real sense or meaning of importance.